Orton1966
You said: "As for the "I've seen this accident, without one and the kid was fine" arguments. That's no different to the "I know someone, who smoked a 60 a day and lived to be 90" touted by smokers."
Be consistent! It is EXACTLY as accurate as those who say: "I've seen this accident, WITH one, and the kid was fine"
Our point is that neither case can be proven. Wearing one COULD protect you and it also COULD injure you. Not wearing one COULD injure you but COULD also protect you.
You seem to be saying that you can tell which one of those is true..... our 'side' just asks..... 'how do YOU know when the (supposed) experts say that they DON'T know?'
I am delighted to confirm that I do NOT know which is safer. That's not because I haven't looked but because there is vastly insufficient 'evidence' either way. For me, I can only guess it's 50:50 and thus I can't see why anyone would want to waste their money on something that has NOT been shown to improve safety or performance.
However, it's your money: you spend it on what you like..... so long as it can't be shown to increase the risks to your child!
Ian
Ian
|
|